New discovery in Byblis gigantea.

I've made another fascinating new discovery within the genus Byblis. I'd like to present to you, yet another documentation of sessile glands and pulvini within the genus Byblis. Byblis gigantea "sessile gland-pulvinic form".

Here's a general photo of the forementioned plant. The exact areas we'll be examining in macro detail are noted as Zones 1 and 2;

Here's a closer view of zones 1 and 2;

Now, let's examine zone 1 in macro. Note the abundance of sessile glands and the existence of pulvini, two occurances not previously described in the species description;

And in our final view, you can notice that sessile glands run abundantly throughout the entire surface of the leaf, pedicel, mainstem and pulvinus;

Very interesting, and great plant! Do you think that the sessile glands are involved in the digestion process? I have large numbers of B gigantea seedlings from two locations ('Canning River East of Perth' and 'Perth Airport'). As long as they do not succumb to damp off, I will post some detailed photos in a few months when they have grown a bit. By the way, what substrate and pot size do you use for your B gigantea?

Interests:CPs in the wild, especially Drosera, Pinguicula, Genlisea, and Utrics

Posted 25 April 2010 - 21:38 PM

Hello Brian,

Congrats on yet more interesting observations with Byblis! Although this may not be in the original species description from 1839, have you checked more recent literature like Lloyd or Daniel, Juniper, Joels? Has anyone else mentioned these structures since B.gigantea was described?

If not, it would be interesting to get more close-up shots of these sessile glands, more conclusive proof of what you claim, to remove any and all doubt in a publication. As for pulvini (and sessile glands as well), it would be important to check plants in cultivation elsewhere and especially herbarium specimens. Or else people are gonna start thinking that maybe something in your cultivation technique is causing the formation of pulvini, hehehe! :)

I don't really know a great deal about taxonomy, but it is certainly the case that several Byblis species, (I think Byblis gigantea, liniflora and filifolia), were described in the nineteenth century. I wonder whether these species were described solely on the basis of dried herbarium specimens. If so, this could explain the lack of pulvini in the literature. The other day, I looked at some dried annual Byblis from last year, and the pulvini were not evident, even though they were certainly there when the plants were alive.

I am quite familiar with Lloyd's work (1945) regarding Byblis gigantea. However, I've never been too impressed with fig. 9 plate 9 which supposedly shows the sessile glands. Plus, there is no mention of pulvini appendages whatsoever. Therefore, to clear up any murkiness, please review the following photos. The area we'll be observing in detail is Zone 2, per the photo in my prior post above. I've added some slight spectral enhancement, since they are smaller than a needlepoint!

And finally, one with a little alternate lighting;

Greg,

I grow my B. gigantea in deep pots with a mix ratio of 1/3 peat, 1/3 sand and 1/3 perlite. I keep wet, but never in standing water and let the media dry slightly between waterings.

Now, let's take a world-wide look at Byblis 'Goliath' and Byblis 'David' and their pulvinic appendages, from the mouths of other Byblis growers.

Greg Allen's posts from the UK, which is an entire ocean away from me. This first post documents pulvini in two proposed Byblis species, "B. guehoi" and "B. rorida". http://icps.proboard...amp;thread=3245

While we're on the subject of "B. aquatica", let's take a look at 'in situ' photos by Phil Mann, compliments of Bob Z's fantastic CP Photofinder. Pulvinus is clearly seen in the photo;http://i148.photobuc...l/Bamaga026.jpg

Moving right along...Cindy (from Singapore) which his half a world away from me, shows pulvinus in all of her photos of the proposed species "Byblis liniflora" also known as Byblis 'David';http://icps.proboard...amp;thread=3214

And lastly, a fairly recent post from Katie. She describes how her Byblis 'Goliath' pedicels are moving via pulvini, along with other proposed Byblis species as well;http://www.cpukforum...showtopic=36365

Whew! Now hopefully that should adequately clear up any doubts about pulvinic appendages in Byblis 'Goliath' and Byblis 'David'.

While on the subject of Byblis pulvinus, my latest results from my experiments are showing that pulvinus size could also be related to wet/dry extremes. My latest theory is that the pulvinus doesn't always just provide movement, but may also double as a water storage organ as well during dry periods. Although now I have proven that the existence of pulvini in Byblis is persistant in all proposed Byblis species (since I've always firmly believed B. gigantea and B. lamellata to be the same plant), my results are showing that the pulvini can vary in size as well, due to cultivational extremes. I firmly believe that this anomaly occurs 'in situ' as well. More results to follow soon!

Interests:CPs in the wild, especially Drosera, Pinguicula, Genlisea, and Utrics

Posted 29 April 2010 - 19:13 PM

Hey Brian,

Thanks for the well-documented reply! I think your next step is to organize all this info into an article and publish it somewhere. I recommend you summarize your findings relative to pulvini and what you believe are the taxonomic (or other) implications of these on Byblis species (something I confess has been lost on me). I hope you understand that most people (me included) are not going to spend the required time to carefully read through each one of the threads you linked above. Thus a complete summary of your findings and taxonomic opinions in print would be the way for you to convince a larger audience of your hypotheses.

For example, you say:

>Whew! Now hopefully that should adequately clear up any doubts about pulvinic appendages in Byblis 'Goliath' and Byblis 'David'.

You are assuming too much, hehehe! I confess that to me the pulvini are not too clear in most pictures, maybe because I don't know too well what I am looking for. These need to be well described morphologically and well documented in close-up shots. Same goes for the sessile glands: your pics above still do not remove all doubt as to what those tiny clear "spots" on the stems are. You need higher magnification pics with little arrows pointing to the exact structures you are referring to. Take a look at any other article describing glands, for example in Drosera, as a reference.

In the sentence above you are also assuming that everyone knows what your opinions are relative to the relationships between these 2 cultivars and the species which Allen published. This may be detailed in one or more of those numerous links, so once again I recommend you summarize it all and publish a nice article so that more people will understand and maybe agree with you. Either way it would certainly add to our knowledge and understanding of Byblis taxa.

I hope you don't take this the wrong way, I am just trying to challenge your observations (often playing devil's advocate) so that you can formally transform these personal opinions into widely accepted knowledge. I was in a very similar situation when I 1st started studying my native Brazilian plants (and noticed that there was so much taxonomic bullcrap in the literature). Although I was often more than certain about something new I'd observed, I slowly realized that people were not going to take my word for anything unless I documented everything by writing nice little summarized articles that people could easily digest or easily refer to when in doubt.

I emailed Mr.Allen Lowrie in November, 2008. Because I had no idea why you mentioned, “a pulvinus on the pedicels of Byblis 'Goliath' is unusual".Also you thought the pulvinus was a cultivar trait of Byblis filifolia ICPS cultivar.Goliath.

On October 29, 2008You wrote on ICPS forum: reply 12 in http://icps.proboard...amp;thread=2348…But unfortunately, Byblis guehoi (which I think you were referring to) does not have a pulvinus on the pedicels such as Byblis 'Goliath' does,…

On November 3, 2008I wrote: reply 17 in http://icps.proboard...=...2348&page=2About the photo 7 and 8,In my opinion, the pulvinus in the photos is very common character of Byblis.(= In my opinion, the pulvinus in the photos is a very common character of Byblis.)

There was an attachment in the reply that I had received from Mr.Allen Lowrie in November, 2008. It was his reply to you. It was a proof of the following.What he taught you & it was what time. ---You wrote:Also, have you noticed pulvinic appendages on any species or forms in the field?Mr.Allen Lowrie wrote:Yes I have. I have seen them on Byblis filifolia, Byblis guehoii and Byblis gigantea. See attached photos of Byblis lamellata.---

One of the photos was DSC02567 B.lamellata. = a pulvinus on Byblis lamellata

I'm really growing weary of your increasingly desperate sounding senseless posts. So, I'll make this as brief as possible and to the point.

You said; On October 29, 2008You wrote on ICPS forum: reply 12 in http://icps.proboard...amp;thread=2348…But unfortunately, Byblis guehoi (which I think you were referring to) does not have a pulvinus on the pedicels such as Byblis 'Goliath' does,…

Now, let me finish the post where you conveniently left off ; nor to my knowledge is pulvinus included or documented in any of Allen's species descriptions regarding the genus Byblis.

Again, you said; On November 3, 2008I wrote: reply 17 in http://icps.proboard...=...2348&page=2About the photo 7 and 8,In my opinion, the pulvinus in the photos is very common character of Byblis.(= In my opinion, the pulvinus in the photos is a very common character of Byblis.)

My answer? Your observations come well after June of 2008, which is the date of submission for the cultivar Byblis 'Goliath'. Obviously the International Cultivar Registration Authority (ICRA) under the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants thinks a bit differently about the discovery of pulvini in Byblis... Your comments are based on your detest of my findings. If it was truly such a "common" feature, then you wouldn't jump at every chance you can to beat me down when I try to share my information with fellow CP enthusiasts. Your actions and "grasping for straws" out of blatent desperation speak otherwise.

And once again, you said; There was an attachment in the reply that I had received from Mr.Allen Lowrie in November, 2008. It was his reply to you. It was a proof of the following.What he taught you & it was what time. ---You wrote:Also, have you noticed pulvinic appendages on any species or forms in the field?Mr.Allen Lowrie wrote:Yes I have. I have seen them on Byblis filifolia, Byblis guehoii and Byblis gigantea. See attached photos of Byblis lamellata.---

One of the photos was DSC02567 B.lamellata. = a pulvinus on Byblis lamellata

My answer to you; Yes, it was only three blurry photos. Two supposedly of B. lamellata and one of a Stylidium. What does a B. lamellata photo have to do with it for Christ's sake!?! My most recent pulvinus discovery was with B. gigantea! All of your observations and photos again come well after June of 2008, which is the date of submission for the cultivar Byblis 'Goliath'. Your comments are based on your detest of my findings. It's a proven fact that before the public announcing of my findings that no photos of pulvinus in Byblis existed on the web at all. Dr Jan Schlauer and myself researched it in-depth. I even went as far as comparing a 2007 seedlist from Allen Lowrie with his more current ones. And I did find some very unusual coincidences when comparing the two which I won't get into....still no pulvinus mentioned in any of the proposed Byblis species, in his seedlists or any species descriptions for that matter.

However very shortly thereafter, a certain person who was once fairly inaccessable to most for years suddenly flooded the CP community with hoards of Byblis photos, huge seed donations to various CP Societies, (mainly Byblis seeds) CDs and interesting seedlists. What an odd coincidence! And this was in November of 2008 as well. But still, this was "a day late and a dollar short" as we say here in the US. Once again, information made available way after the fact, based on my initial discoveries.

So in closing, unless you can produce an officially acceptable document recognized by the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants or a legitimate Byblis species document published prior to June 2008 regarding pulvini....then your words are falling on a lot of deaf ears, due to your constant harassment regarding everything I try to share with my fellow enthusiasts and friends publicly. And the number of deaf ears is increasing daily. By the way, how is B. 'Goliath' clones one through four growing for you now from my supposedly "crushed" seed? Nevermind me asking. The photos in your above and past posts show that you've been growing them all along! B. guehoi does not have pulvini in it's species description. Nice pulvini!

Really nice photographs, thank you for posting! Pulvini in Byblis spp. have indeed never been mentioned in the scientific literature so far, although they have obviously been pictured in several publications. ;)

However, the presence and structure of the short stalked and sessile glands in Byblis gigantea (and other species), in addition to the longer stalked ones, has already been noted and published by Charles Darwin (1875), and subsequently the different gland types have been studied in detail eg. by Lang (1901), Fenner (1904), Diels (1930), Llyod (1942), Juniper et al. (1989) and Conran & Carolin (2004); the latter two with excellent SEM images.

Here's some interesting photos showing pedicels decending via pulvini in Byblis gigantea. Pedicels in Byblis that move via pulvini was first documented in June of 2008 with B. 'Goliath'.

Let's start with a photo taken before pollination;

And now, some photos of the pulvini after successful pollination of only one flower (to the left in photo) The flower to the right was intentionally left unpollinated.Note swelling in pulvinus and decending pedicel on the left with ripening capsule as is with Byblis 'Goliath'.

Here's a few closer views of zones one and two;

And last of all, a decent macro of an insect!

IMPORTANT UPDATE; At last... the results are finally in regarding Byblis hybridization!

Two reputable CP enthusiasts from Germany and UK have reported their failed attempts at hybridizing the following Byblis species; Here's a quick overview of the results. Detailed summaries will soon be posted publicly on the Byblis Chronicles website.

Byblis filifolia "south of the Old Pago Mission, north of Kalumburu, in the Kimberley" X Byblis guehoi "multi-headed plants, mauve flower" Kimberley, Australia."- Results; few seed produced that appear small and stunted. Some capsules appear two be filled with only air with no seed present. Seed infertile, no germination.

Byblis guehoi "multi-headed plants, mauve flower" Kimberley, Australia." X Byblis filifolia"south of the Old Pago Mission, north of Kalumburu, in the Kimberley". Results; Same as above, but with slightly more infertile seed produced. No germination.

Byblis filifolia "south of the Old Pago Mission, north of Kalumburu, in the Kimberley" X Byblis filifolia "loc 37 Kimberley X loc 06 Northern Territory, an F1 hybrid". Results; Few infertile seed produced with zero germination.

Byblis rorida “growing with a new Byblis species (in publication)” 80 km E of Broome" X Byblis filifolia "Gibb River, Kimberley". Resulting seed from the cross is infertile. Results; Very few, if any seed produced. No germination.

Interests:CPs in the wild, especially Drosera, Pinguicula, Genlisea, and Utrics

Posted 12 May 2010 - 15:10 PM

Hello Brian,

Very nice shots! Here it's very clear when and how pulvini show up in Byblis. So do you think the purpose behind them is simply to help bend the flower closer towards the ground to release the seed? When are we going to see an article from you in CPN summarizing your discoveries and theories? :)

Also, how do you interpret the failed crosses you mentioned above and how do these fit in with your studies? Are you implying that because they can't be crossed that they are thus good species? Have you tried making similar crosses between the different species to verify (un)compatibility?

Very interesting, Brian. You may be interested to note that in summer 2006, I had two adult plants of B rorida 'Taylor's Lagoon', both of which I grew from the same batch. I could not get either of them to produce seed, even though I released pollen from the flowers and crossed them.

Also, do you think that the growers will be willing to post photos of their plants? I am especially keen to see whether there is any evidence of branching in the guehoi and filifolia plants.

Finally- when are we going to see your TC B 'Goliath' with white flowers???

Unfortunately, I must report that the white flowered and multi-colored occurances in Byblis 'Goliath' flowers is purely conditional and is not a stable trait. Extreme sun, heat and dryer conditions causes a bleaching effect in all Byblis flowers. This can be accomplished by sitting a plant in direct sun with no shading and withholding water for an extended period.

Also, many grower's Byblis and pulvinus photos from around the world can be found here at Bob Z's CP photofinder;